Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[Lightbearer]

People are kept willfully ignorant by teaching them to shun or otherwise avoid intellectual material that would remedy their ignorance. Thus their state of ignorance on the topic in question is maintained in a willful manner.

For example, I am willfully ignorant of the game World of Warcraft. I choose to not learn anything about it. My wife could "keep" me willfully ignorant by limiting my access, telling me their would be great consequences socially if I do, or otherwise controlling my access to the information or my desire to access the information. This is often referred to as gate keeping.

In the topic at hand, the very term "anti-Mormon" is a gate keeping activity for example. For most members, you merely need to label a work or its author as "anti-Mormon" and most member will not engage it on any level. So the leadership doesn't need to deal with the arguments or historical information in any particular work, they only need to make sure the concept of an "anti-Mormon" is alive understood and they have a way to apply it, preferably in a subtle way. There are other such mechanisms, but I think this illustrates the point.

Just how does the Church keep people ignorant? Do they shut them up in the basement of our Temples and restrict them access to the outside world? This is a totally ludicrous accusation, unworthy even of you. Now if you mean as gatekeepers the leaders keep apostate and Satanic lies out of our classes and quorums I would ask what is wrong with that? As for gatekeepers I guess we all come from a long line of gatekeepers:

(2 Nephi 9:41-43) "O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches

[Lightbearer]

Any TBM associating Satan and/or anti-mormon to any given thoughts/material has effectively put a scarlet letter on the topic ... is that really in doubt here?

No doubt in my mind whatsoever that Anti-Mormon material IS SATANIC in nature no matter who is promulgating it.

[Jake]

OK, I hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but is this quote from Wiki Wonka's list really saying what I think it is saying?

How did someone actually get that printed in the Ensign?

If this is the level of apologetics to be published by the Church, then I would recommend adopting a strict policy of disengagement and just go back to pretending things happened the way we wish they had.

LOL!!!!! Haaaa haaaa, I missed the reference from "Anonymous". I was too busy looking for a "head in the hat" date and reference from a Gospel Doctrine, Priesthood, Relief Society, Seminary, Primary, Jr. Sunday School, ANY manuel that might have been used to instruct the saints.

I'm still looking.

But it's not hidden.

[William Schryver]

Any TBM associating Satan and/or anti-mormon to any given thoughts/material has effectively put a scarlet letter on the topic ... is that really in doubt here?

Do you believe in Satan and his assistant devils?

[SilverKnight]

People are kept willfully ignorant by teaching them to shun or otherwise avoid intellectual material that would remedy their ignorance. Thus their state of ignorance on the topic in question is maintained in a willful manner.

The only thing I have heard, in church, or by some LDS suthority is "don't read anti-mormon literature or browse anti-mormon websites, it is spiritually destructive", or something to that effect.

Nobody I know has been instructed, directly or indirectly, to "avoid intellectual material to remedy our ignorance."

Also, I would be curious to learn of any church that actively teaches its unsavory history to its members during worship services.

Do you know of any Catholic churches that after mass hold classes on the atrocities committed by past popes?

Ultimately, atheist critics of religion will never be satisfied with any churches effort to cast doubt on its own miracles and supernatural claims.

[jwhitlock]

I am a part of us.

I do not consider MINO to be part of us.

[cinepro]

I do not consider MINO to be part of us.

Based on the latest statistical report, it seems the Church does.

[mercyngrace]

LOL!!!!! Haaaa haaaa, I missed the reference from "Anonymous".

The article in its entirety has no author as it is just a timeline. The specific quote is referenced as follows:

Gordon A. Madsen,

[ttribe]

I think the chief problem, like Consig offers, is that many topics are simply not allowed to be talked about.

I must have missed the list of topics "simply not allowed to be talked about". Can someone point me to that list? Maybe it's on LDS.org? I'm just struggling to find it.

[Jeff K.]

Maybe they mistake indifference with their pet projects as "verboten".

[SilverKnight]

I must have missed the list of topics "simply not allowed to be talked about". Can someone point me to that list? Maybe it's on LDS.org? I'm just struggling to find it.

I don't know what there's a list per se.

But I wouldn't recommend recounting the Fanny Alger story in Elders Quorum.

[jwhitlock]

Based on the latest statistical report, it seems the Church does.

Thank you - but that's irrelevant to the point at hand.

[ttribe]

I don't know what there's a list per se.

But I wouldn't recommend recounting the Fanny Alger story in Elders Quorum.

I suppose that depends on how the story is recounted and editorialized.

[consiglieri]

But I wouldn't recommend recounting the Fanny Alger story in Elders Quorum.

Probably better in Laurels.

Or would that be MIA Maids?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

Probably better in Laurels.

Or would that be MIA Maids?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Lame.

[Jeff K.]

Lame, but only intellectually.

[Wiki Wonka]

The only thing I have heard, in church, or by some LDS suthority is "don't read anti-mormon literature or browse anti-mormon websites, it is spiritually destructive", or something to that effect.

Nobody I know has been instructed, directly or indirectly, to "avoid intellectual material to remedy our ignorance."

Also, I would be curious to learn of any church that actively teaches its unsavory history to its members during worship services.

Do you know of any Catholic churches that after mass hold classes on the atrocities committed by past popes?

Ultimately, atheist critics of religion will never be satisfied with any churches effort to cast doubt on its own miracles and supernatural claims.

I just posted this quote from the front page of the FAIR Wiki on MDB when someone brought up a similar point:

[wenglund]

Another way of looking at this issue would be to ask: "how many of those here who have left the church, have returned to the Church once they had a chance to freely discuss their faith-shaking questions on this and other LDS-related boards?"

Or, "how many former members here would have remained faithful within the Church were their faith-shaking questions to have been addressed in Church?"

In my lengthy experience participating in open discussions here and elsewhere with struggling members and former members, I would guess that the answer to both questions closely approximates zero, which suggests to me that the proposition in the OP is demonstrably false.

To me, this makes sense because I believe loss of faith to typically be a function of people losing sight of the intended end of faith (i.e. becoming like Christ) and/or their failing to correctly apply the principles of growth in faith (as per Alma 32), but instead are distracted and lose their way because of functional irrelevancies. They fail the test of faith by concerning themselves with things that aren't really pertinent to thier growth in faith.

In other words, if one is really intent on preserving people's faith and enabling them to continue to grow therein, then, as the Lord intimated in Lehi and Nephi's dream, the focus of Church education ought to be on holding fast to the iron rod, rather than endulging the chatter from the GSB or swimming in the rivers of sophestry or attempting to cut through the fog of confusion and doubt of anti-Mormonism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Another way of looking at this issue would be to ask: "how many of those here who have left the church, have returned to the Church once they had a chance to freely discuss their faith-shaking questions on this and other LDS-related boards?"

Or, "how many former members here would have remained faithful within the Church were their faith-shaking questions to have been addressed in Church?"

In my lengthy experience participating in open discussions here and elsewhere with struggling members and former members, I would guess that the answer to both questions closely approximates zero, which suggests to me that the proposition in the OP is demonstrably false.

To me, this makes sense because I believe loss of faith to typically be a function of people losing sight of the intended end of faith (i.e. becoming like Christ) and/or their failing to correctly apply the principles of growth in faith (as per Alma 32), but instead are distracted and lose their way because of functional irrelevancies. They fail the test of faith by concerning themselves with things that aren't really pertinent to thier growth in faith.

In other words, if one is really intent on preserving people's faith and enabling them to continue to grow therein, then, as the Lord intimated in Lehi and Nephi's dream, the focus of Church education ought to be on holding fast to the iron rod, rather than endulging the chatter from the GSB or swimming in the rivers of sophestry or attempting to cut through the fog of confusion and doubt of anti-Mormonism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the above hits the mark pretty well. I find it consistent with my belief, expressed on earlier occasions, that no one is driven involuntarily toward apostasy, that it is usually the cumulative result of myriad choices made over time. And failing to partake of available knowledge, spiritual experience, etc., is a choice.

[cinepro]

Probably better in Laurels.

Or would that be MIA Maids?

Oh snap!

[jwhitlock]

To me, this makes sense because I believe loss of faith to typically be a function of people losing sight of the intended end of faith (i.e. becoming like Christ) and/or their failing to correctly apply the principles of growth in faith (as per Alma 32), but instead are distracted and lose their way because of functional irrelevancies. They fail the test of faith by concerning themselves with things that aren't really pertinent to thier growth in faith.

Very well put. I think this catches the essence of what really happens most of the time.

[Thorkyll]

I submit the following proposition for debate in this thread.

We lose many members to anti-Mormon websites simply because the information presented there can't be discussed openly and freely within a Church classroom or quorum.

What are your thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Christianity couldn't be discussed openly and freely in the Roman Empire during the early days and yet look how it spread like wildfire. You can only blame yourselves. The official Mormon website doesn't provide any answers to apologetical questions. It just gives empty-sounding slogans.

You can also blame God for guiding people away from -- or failing to guide them to -- your religion.

[Eric Blob]

I do think some aspects of the church should be discussed more openly in church though.

I had a seminary teacher (who's now in the Bishopric) that taught us about the Limited Geography Theory a few months ago. He taught me the D&C and church history year, and the old testement year, and he slipped in a lot of "apologetic-y" things into the lessons. The most controversial thing is about Joseph Smith's 14 year-old wives, and the reaction of the class was silence (bear in mind, there were 4 girls of that age in the class), which was better than I thought.

But now I'm safe knowing that they won't be traumatized when they get told about this by an anti-mormon, like I was when I found out about it, all those years ago.

Also, the 14 year-old girls is probably the most troubling thing about the church I think a mormon can hear. Perhaps John C. Bennet and the abortions is worse, but that's so unlikely to actually be true...

[zerinus]

I submit the following proposition for debate in this thread.

What are your thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The problem I see with that question is that it is too general to be answered. One cannot even ascertain that the premise of it is correct because it is so general. If you can bring up a specific instance of what you are alleging, so that it can be discussed and analyzed in detail, then your question becomes easier to answer.

[Mark Beesley]

I submit the following proposition for debate in this thread.

What are your thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think anti-Mormon websites are the perfect venue to discuss the crap they bring up. There are plenty of faithful Latter-day Saints on those sites who can point sincere people in the right direction. Church classroom, quorum meetings, etc. are not the proper venue for discussion of most of those matters. They do not edify. They do not invite the spirit. They are generally contentious. For the life of me I cannot understand why a Gospel Doctrine teacher would want to invite the spirit of contention into his classroom.